In India, administrativeadjudication increased after independence and several welfare laws were promulgated which vested the power on deciding various issues in the hands of the administration. The modern Indian Republic was born a Welfare State and thus the burden on the government to provide a host of welfare services to the people was immense. These quasi- judicial powers acquired by the administration led to a huge number of cases with respect to the manner in which these administrative bodies arrived at their decisions. The Courts held that these bodies must maintain procedural safeguards while arriving at their decisions and observe principles of natural justice-their opinions were substantiated by the 14 th Law Commission Report. 5 In order to avoid clogging the judicial machinery with cases which would have arisen by the operation of these new socio-economic legislations, a number of tribunals were established by the government. The tribunals were established with the object of providing a speedy, cheap and decentralised determination of disputes arising out of the various welfare legislations. 6 Another important reason for the new development is that law courts, on account of their elaborate procedures, legalistic fronts and attitudes can hardly render justice to the parties concerned, in technical cases. Ordinary judges, brought up in the traditions of law and jurisprudence, are not capable enough to understand technical problems, which crop up in the wake of modem complex economic and social processes. Only administrators having expert knowledge can tackle such problems judiciously. To meet this requirement, a number of administrative tribunals have come into existence.
Misuse of JPAS will result in termination of the offender’s JPAS account and exclude culpable companies or persons from future access to JPAS. Additionally, offenders will have a misuse of technology incident recorded on their JPAS record. Information
concerning violations of JPAS policies and may be referred to other federal agencies for consideration of administrative, civil, or criminal sanctions when circumstances warrant. Common misuses of JPAS include, but are not limited to:
General elections (Pemilu in Bahasa Indonesia) are an important instrument in every democratic country that adopts a system of representation. In general, there are 2 (two) dispute settlement paths, which are litigation (dispute settlement path through the judicial route) and non-litigation paths (peaceful settlement outside the court). The type of research used in this legal research is normative juridical type of research which is carried out by examining library material which is secondary data and also called library research. Dispute on election consist of disputes between election participants or between candidates, administrative disputes or State Administration of Elections, and disputes over election results. While crime in election is handled by the Election Supervisor, which is followed up by the General Election Commission (KPU), the regional KPU, and the regional KPU and KPU impose administrative sanctions. Whereas the violation of the code of ethics for the election organizers at the hearing was decided by the Election Organizer Honorary Board (DKPP). Furthermore, disputes between election participants or between candidates are settled by the Election Supervisor, Election administration disputes are settled by the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) by mediation, adjudication and can be appealed to the State Administrative Court, while the election results are settled by the Constitutional Court.
29 See, for example, the different approaches employed in India, South Africa, Nigeria and Brazil in Gauri and Brinks (eds.), Courting Social Justice (n 25). Public interest litigation is not fre- quently employed in the UK context. This could be because there was until recent times a relatively robust and comprehensive legal aid system in place. However, there is also different rules relating to standing across the various jurisdictions of the UK (see Chapter 5) – public interest litigation was historically illegal in the UK context and, although the English courts began to hear interest group cases, this did not necessarily trickle down to devolved jurisdic- tions. For a discussion on the historical reluctance and a more recent leniency (in England) see Carol Harlow, ‘Public Law and Popular Justice’ (2002) 65 The Modern Law Review 1. 30 Gauri and Brinks, ibid. at 22.
Last Updated: 4/30/2014 14
41. What happens in the event of an alleged JPAS misuse?
As the Cognizant Security Agent (CSA) for JPAS, when DMDC is made aware of an alleged misuse of JPAS, the system must be protected from loss of data confidentiality, integrity, and availability. As a result, the user(s) account(s) are administratively locked and placed in administrative review, preventing any access to JPAS during the review. This practice limits risk to the system and its data. During an administrative review:
In 1952, Community Development Programme (CDP) came into existence as a part of the central government policy to encourage people‟s participation in local development. However, with the failure of this policy in 1950s, the idea of constituting representative institutions at the level of village was keenly felt. In 1956, the government appointed a committee to review the programme and suggested a working institutional arrangement. The committee pointed out that one reason for the failure of the panchayats was the absence of an organic link between different levels and suggested restructuring the old programme as a three-tier system with a view to ensuring the people‟s involvement in development programmes. 6 The Committee also argued, “So long as we do not discover or create a representative and democratic institution /…/ invest it with adequate power and assign it appropriate finances, we will never be able to evoke local interest and excite local initiative in the field of development” (Balwant Rai Mehta Committee Report 1957:5). The committee‟s suggestion to establish three-tier panchayats was accepted by the government and came to be known as Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI). Since this committee did not make provisions for fiscal decentralization, a new committee was constituted in 1963 to look into panchayat finances (K.Santhanam Committee 1963). Its key recommendations included powers to levy a special tax on land revenues and homes, and consolidation of all grants at the state level and devolution to PRIs. However, these recommendations were not fully implemented due to lack of political will. By the early 1970s, the institution stagnated and gradually declined in almost all the states due to inadequate devolution of powers, dominant role of vested interests and interference by officials. Thus, the original idea of creating a „four-pillar state‟ remained an elusive dream.
Habitat, GTZ, DFID
§ Established Knowledge Support System for Cities – Urban
Resource Link (URL), Centre for Excellence (CoE)
With new challenges of growing world population, rapid urbanization, and proliferation of cities, sustainability in the urban setting becomes imperative. UGA at ASCI supports national, state and city governments in promoting reforms in governance and better service delivery
The support technician will record the issue in Jira which is Dominion Voting System’s database project based tracking system and either resolve it on the spot or assign it to an appropriate resource for action. Once Dominion Voting’s support team creates the ticket an email message will automatically be sent to the customers’ primary contact email address notifying them that the ticket has been created.
The goal of this project was to provide test support services to assist the California Secretary of State (SOS) with the re-evaluation of Dominion Democracy Suite 4.14-A.1 Voting System, specifically the new Adjudication Version 2.4 component for its suitability for use in the State of California in accordance with Elections Code sections 19001 et seq.
In sum, it is likely that in many cases IBAS adjudication shall present an efficient and effective form of dispute resolution in the gambling arena for punters and bookmakers alike. It has an established track record, is recognised by the Gambling Commission and generally enjoys a solid reputation. In view of the foregoing discussion, however, there may be some instances in which mandatory recourse to IBAS adjudication, in the sense that legal aid is withheld for court proceedings on the basis that this route is available, can be seen as
The exposure of the Professional if its client loses an Adjudication and has to make a significant payment to a Claimant is a very open question. In practical terms, the Professional needs to be able to provide the Respondent (Principal) with a draft assessment of the whole claim within 3 working days, this allows three days to fill in any gaps and three days to settle the payment schedule (ie for the Principal to decide on its response). The tenth day is needed for copying and delivering what is usually a major payment schedule.
required to ensure implementation of and compliance with these guidelines before processing any financial transactions. The guidelines and procedures detailed in this document shall apply to all financial and accounting operations performed by all staff members of the Fund. All staff members of the Fund shall have a thorough understanding of these and all other related administrative guidelines.
will focus on the legitimacy which lay adjudicators’ bring based on their democratic function. The introduction of the citizen judge system was expected to promote social changes related to not only the legal authorities, including the courts, 228 but to also be consciousness-
raising for citizens and influence society to accept, understand, and operate using these democratic concepts. This prospect, envisaged by the Judicial Reform Council, has had a sceptical reception from the citizens. Changes are more likely to occur after the introduction of lay participation. The perception that it is being imposed by the government can increase opposition from citizens. Coercion by the law-making authorities and the scepticism of citizens may lead to their opposition against the government, rather than a consensus for promoting the rule of law with lay participation and a sense of self-governing. In this respect, a lay adjudicationsystem may highlight and increase a sense of distrust in the authorities. Miller suggests that the development of legal systems can be multi-faced, and offers five typologies of ‘legal transplant’ 229 , which Japan used repeatedly as a tool for the judicial
lenge to AJs does not suffer this failing because of the agencies’ direct ap- pointment and control over AJs. To be sure, certain questions may still exist: For instance, what effect do regulations that limit agency interference or re- moval of an AJ have? Can agencies ever sufficiently separate the division of the agency that hires and removes AJs from the division of the agency that appears as a party? Does it matter whether the agency appears as an adver- sarial party, as opposed to merely having certain policy preferences relevant to the adjudication between private parties? Nevertheless, the boundaries of an AJ-partiality claim are much more defined than in Caperton state-election claims, in which courts must attempt to intuit when a candidate’s supporter, who also has a case before the court, has impermissibly influenced an elec- tion by donating money to the candidate and third parties. In other words, even the dissenting Justices should have little quarrel with a Caperton claim in the AJ context.
We have arrived at the following conclusion. In the theory of legal adjudication, each of Old Textualism, New Textualism, Intentionalism, and Normativism has a role to play. But the role of each theory is heavily circumscribed. Old Textualism applies to the easiest cases, the cases in which the relevant dispute does not concern an ambiguous, vague, or context sensitive piece of language. Intentionalism applies when a dispute hinges on the resolution of ambiguity. New Textualism applies when the relevant provision is unambiguous (or has been disambiguated), but remains either vague or context sensitive. And Normativism applies when the unambiguous or disambiguated provision contains language of normative import. There is, then, a robust sense in which the proponents of all these theories are right. But there is also a robust sense in which the typical proponent of each theory is mistaken. For each proponent insists that his theory applies in each and every case. And, in this, he is wrong. It would be a mistake to adopt a New Textualist approach to the resolution of ambiguity, and it would be no less of a mistake to adopt an Intentionalist approach to the resolution of vagueness. It would be a mistake to adopt an Old Textualist approach to language containing linguistic infelicity, and it would be no less of a mistake to adopt a Normativist approach to nonnormative language containing no linguistic infelicity whatever. If there is a moral here, it is that different linguistic problems demand different solutions. Once each theory is given its due and its supporters come to recognize that it does not apply beyond its proper domain, the road is open to synthesis, and, ultimately, theoretical reconciliation.